# Council Work Session - December 8, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · December 8, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1145 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1145?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-12-08 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 21,503 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The City Council convened on December 8, 2009, with the Mayor presiding over the session. The meeting addressed a total of 6 agenda items, all of which were approved, covering a range of municipal matters including land use, business enterprise policy, public financing, infrastructure, and grant funding. Specifically, the Council approved two zone change ordinances, a resolution supporting disadvantaged business enterprise goals, the issuance of general obligation public project bonds, a change order for a pump station upgrade, and a grant application for a chief service officer position. During the meeting, 2 votes were recorded and 2 public comments were heard. ## Attendance All 14 council members were present at the December 8, 2009 Council meeting. No members were recorded as absent or late. **Members Present:** - Council Member Ehlinger - Council Member Bruce - Council Member James - Council Member Gordon - Council Member Stennet - Council Member Lane - Council Member Martin - Council Member Henson - Council Member Myers - Council Member Lawless - Council Member Crosby - Council Member Blues - Council Member Wallace - Council Member Ellinger ## Votes and Decisions Two motions came to a vote during the December 8, 2009 Council meeting, both related to the E911 division. - **Refer E911 Staffing and Hiring to Intergovernmental Committee** [timestamp: 1:52:13]: Council Member Henson moved, and Council Member Crosby seconded, a motion to refer E911 staffing and hiring matters to the Intergovernmental Committee. The motion passed on a voice vote. - **Extend Vacation Hours for E911 Division for 90 Days** [timestamp: 2:06:31]: Council Member Henson moved, and Council Member Crosby seconded, a motion to extend vacation hours for the E911 division for a period of 90 days. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 9 ayes to 3 nays. - **Voting in favor (9):** Council Members Ehlinger, Bruce, James, Gordon, Stennet, Lane, Martin, Henson, and Lawless. - **Voting against (3):** Council Members Myers, Crosby, and Blues. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council addressed two financial items during the December 8, 2009 meeting. - **Pump Station Upgrade Contract:** The Council considered a contract with Schroeder Construction Inc. valued at **$2,400** for a pump station upgrade at the Haley Pike Landfill. No resolution identifier was associated with this item in the meeting record. - **Cities of Service Coalition Grant Application:** The Council took up a grant application to the Cities of Service Coalition seeking **$100,000** in funding. The grant would support the establishment of a chief service officer position. No specific vendor or recipient organization beyond the coalition itself was identified in connection with this item, and no resolution number was recorded. No additional budget amendments, appropriations, or financial resolutions were recorded for this meeting. ## Public Comment Two members of the public addressed the Council during the public comment period, both speaking to concerns about staffing and working conditions in the E911 department. - **Tracy Wells** spoke at approximately [timestamp: 1:32:00], discussing the difficulties E911 staff face when attempting to take vacation time. Wells highlighted understaffing as a central issue, noting that the demands of the job and the shortage of available personnel make it difficult for employees to use their earned time off. Wells also addressed the stress associated with working in E911, suggesting that the inability to take adequate breaks compounds the burden on existing staff. - **Carla Anderson** spoke at approximately [timestamp: 2:11:18], further elaborating on the operational challenges within the E911 department. Anderson focused on how staffing shortages directly affect employees' ability to take vacation, echoing concerns raised by Wells and providing additional context around the day-to-day impact these shortages have on department operations. Both speakers centered their comments on the same core issue: that understaffing in E911 creates a cycle in which employees are unable to take time away from work, which in turn contributes to ongoing stress and operational strain within the department. ## Appointments The Council took action on appointments to various commissions and boards during the December 8, 2009 meeting. The available structured data indicates that multiple individuals were appointed to positions across a range of commissions and boards, though the specific names of the appointees and the particular bodies to which they were assigned are not detailed in the available record. No timestamps are available for this portion of the meeting. - **Appointees:** Various individuals - **Bodies/Roles:** Various commissions and boards - **Action taken:** Appointed For the full list of names and their corresponding commission or board assignments, readers are encouraged to consult the official meeting minutes or agenda documentation from the December 8, 2009 Council meeting, which would contain the complete record of each individual appointment as acted upon by the Council. ## Contested Items - **E911 Vacation Time Extension** [timestamp: N/A]: A heated discussion arose during the meeting regarding a proposal to extend vacation time for E911 employees. The dispute centered on understaffing within the E911 department and the resulting denial of vacation requests to employees. Because staffing levels were insufficient, workers had been unable to take their allotted vacation time, prompting the discussion about whether an extension should be granted to allow them to use that time at a later date. The specific individuals involved in the debate and the final outcome of the discussion are not recorded in the available meeting data. ## Zone change ordinance [timestamp: 00:41] The Council took up Agenda Item 19, a zone change ordinance, early in the meeting. The item was handled without a public hearing. Council Members Ehlinger and Bruce were the key speakers on this item. The ordinance was brought forward for Council consideration and discussion, though no significant debate or concerns are noted in the record from this portion of the meeting. The Council approved the zone change ordinance. ## Zone change ordinance [timestamp: 01:46] The Council took up Agenda Item 20, a zone change ordinance, during the December 8, 2009 meeting. The item was addressed without a public hearing. Key speakers on this item included Council Member Ehlinger and Council Member Gordon. The ordinance was brought forward for Council consideration and discussion. The Council approved the zone change ordinance. No additional details regarding the specific properties affected, the nature of the zone change, or any concerns raised during deliberation are available from the meeting record. ## Resolution Supporting Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goals [timestamp: 02:19] The Council took up a resolution supporting the adoption of disadvantaged business enterprise goals, which had been added to the docket for consideration at this meeting. Council Member James was the key speaker on this item. The resolution was brought forward to formally express the Council's support for establishing disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) goals, a framework typically used to ensure that businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals have opportunities to participate in publicly funded contracting and procurement activities. The record does not reflect extended debate or significant concerns raised during the discussion of this item. The Council moved forward on the resolution, and it was approved. ## General obligation public project bonds [timestamp: 03:37] The Council considered an ordinance authorizing the issuance of general obligation public project bonds. Council Member Stennet was the key speaker on this item, which was added to the docket for the Council's consideration. The ordinance was approved by the Council. ## Change order for pump station upgrade [timestamp: 04:45] The Council considered a resolution authorizing a change order to the contract with Schroeder Construction Inc. for a pump station upgrade. The item was added to the docket for the December 8, 2009 meeting. Council Member Lane was the key speaker on this item. The resolution was brought forward to formally authorize the change order modification to the existing contract with Schroeder Construction Inc. in connection with the pump station upgrade project. The Council approved the resolution. ## Grant application for chief service officer position [timestamp: 05:52] The Council considered a resolution authorizing the mayor to submit a grant application for funding a chief service officer position. The item was added to the docket for the meeting. Council Member Henson was the key speaker on this agenda item. The resolution was brought forward to seek external grant funding to support the creation of a chief service officer position, with the mayor designated as the authorized party to submit the application on the city's behalf. The resolution was approved by the Council. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-3): Extend vacation hours for E911 division for 90 days - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Refer E911 staffing and hiring to Intergovernmental Committee --- ## Full transcript Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on matters that are on today's agenda? I'm not aware of any, so we'll proceed. We have a docket to approve. Is there- Move to approve. Have a motion by Council Member Ehlinger. Second. Mayor. Have a second by Council Member Bruce. Go ahead. Mayor, There are two, uh, ordinances, zone changes, number 19 and 20, that need to have motions made, please. All right. To have or to not have public hearings. Number, um, 20. 19 and 20? Yes. Move to number 19 without a public hearing. Second. Have a motion to amend the docket to put number 19 on without a hearing. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Um, is there a motion with regard to number 20? Yeah. Um, Mayor. Council Member James. Um, I don't know what the number is but I have a motion to add something additional to the docket. Is this the time to do that? Okay, I'll hold. I- if you'll, if you'll hold on for just a moment, I think we need a motion with regard to number 19. No, I did 19. Number 20 rather. Number 20. I move to number 20 without a public hearing. Second. Have a motion by Council Member Ehlinger and a second by Council Member Gordon to put the number 20 on without a hearing. Any discussion? Then all in favor of amending the docket to put number 20 on without a hearing, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Now Council Member James. Thanks, Mayor. Um, this is something handed to me by the administration. I move to place on the docket for Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 council meeting, a resolution supporting the adoption of disadvantaged business enterprise goals consistent with and conforming to the requirements of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 and any regulations, requirements, guidelines or policies adopted, promulgated by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to the extent necessary to qualify for funding, with such goals being based upon an analysis and review of each project on an individual basis and amending resolution number 167-91 to the extent it is consistent with this resolution. So moved. Second. Have a motion by Council Member James and a second by Council Member Ehlinger to add that resolution to the docket for this evening's meeting. Any discussion? All in favor then, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Are there other- Mayor. ... motions to make? Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket for Tuesday, December the 8th, 2009 council meeting, an ordinance authorizing the issuance of 60 or 68,100,000 general obligation public project bonds, series 210A Build America Bonds, B, 7,785,000 general obligation refunding bonds, series 2010B tax exempt, and C, 6,670,000 general obligation refunding bonds, series 2010C tax exempt, all of which may be increased or decreased by an amount not to exceed 10% and to take authorized actions related to the issuance and a resolution authorizing the advertisement for bids and the distribution of the preliminary official statement of these bonds and related authorized actions. So moved. Second. Have a motion by Council Member Stennet and a second by Council Member Myers to add that, uh, ordinance and, uh, resolution to the docket for this evening's meeting. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Are there other motions to amend the docket? Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket for Tuesday, December 8, 2009 a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Irwin County Government to execute a change order to the contract with Schroeder Construction Inc. for pump station upgrade at Haley Pike Landfill, increasing the contract price by the sum of $2,400, from 356,416 to 358,816. So moved. Second. Have a motion by Council Member Lane, second by Council Member Martin, to, um, amend the docket by placing that item on the docket. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Henson, did you have a resolution to add to the docket? Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket for the December 8th council meeting, a resolution authorizing the mayor to submit a grant application to the Cities of Service Coalition in the amount of $100,000 for funding a chief service officer position for two years for a program to increase volunteerism in the community. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Council Member Ehlinger has second Council Member Henson's motion to amend the docket by adding that resolution. Any discussion? All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I have just passed out a -- a resolution. We've talked about this a couple of different times. Out of, um, Partner Agency Oversight Committee, we discussed before, um, I guess w- we actually started in the Budget and Finance Committee last year talking about the partner agencies that are on our healthcare plan that should not be on there. Letters have already gone out to the agencies, um, quite some time ago. There's two different segments of 'em. The first group I think has already been removed if I'm -- if I'm not mistaken. Uh, Mr. Kelly can come up and speak to that in a second. And so right now, we're just finalizing that, and at the end of this, it's gonna make it so that in the future people can't hop onto our healthcare plan unless they're either an employee or a retiree of LFUCG. So I'll go ahead and read the motion and then take questions if there are any. I move to place on the docket for first reading of resolution providing that partner agencies currently participating in medical insurance plans provided by the Irving County Government shall no longer be eligible to participate -- to participate by the date specified in the resolution, and providing that after December 31st, 2010 only LFUCG employees and retirees shall be eligible to participate in the medical insurance plans offered by the Irving County Government. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Meyers and a second by Council Member Henson to add that resolution to the docket and to amend the docket accordingly. Any discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor of amending the docket to include that resolution, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. Any further motions to amend? Then I think we're now ready to vote on approving the docket as amended. All in favor of approving the docket as amended, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. We have a summary to approve, uh, from our December 1st work session. Move approval. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the summary from December 1st. The second was by Council Member Lawless. The motion was by Council Member Gordon. Any discussion? All in favor of approving the summary, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. We have some budget amendments. Is there a motion? Move approval. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Gordon and a second by Council Member Meyers to approve the budget amendments. Any discussion? Council Member James. Mayor, I received, um, information from the administration that, um -- regarding a budget journal and I'll just read the motion. I move that budget journal 39... 39166-67 for Douglas Heights redevelopment be removed from consideration of budget journals on page 10 of the work session packet. This item was included in -- with the new business item on the November 24th work session and is actually on tonight for a second reading. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Council Member James and a second by Council Member Gordon to remove journal number 39166-67 from the budget amendment list. Any discussion? All in favor of amending the journal, uh, the budget amendment request list- Second. ... as indicated, please let it be known by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. We're now on the discussion of the budget amendments as amended. Is there any discussion? All then in favor of approving the budget amendment request list as amended, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. We have a few items of new business for your consideration. Is there a motion to approve? Move approval. Second. Have a motion by Council Member Stinnett, second by Council Member Gordon to approve the new business items. Any discussion? All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. We're now down to the, um, presentations. Mayor? Hmm. May I interrupt? Yes. I'd like to move for the approval of Neighborhood Development Fund list. Uh, I've done this early in the -- in the process because the, uh, the c- the council administrators, uh, needs time to prepare it for tonight's docket. So moved. Second. Very well. Have a motion and second to approve the NDF. Any discussion? All in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Anything further? All right. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. This is a, a report out on the, uh, November 24th meeting of the Water Resources Oversight Committee and, and, uh, council members, you have the -- a packet with, uh, with the -- with the minutes and some additional items, uh, that will be relevant to this report. I wanna touch on, uh, on the high points. The, uh, the packet contains, uh, financials for the period ending October 31. Uh, Commissioner Runkey made that presentation and reported no significant changes in, in funds. Uh, your handout number 31, uh, contains the monthly report on water quality construction projects, and the only significant changes since last month are, are item 10, the North Elkhorn force main, which is now online and, and working. And on line 36, the Bluegrass Airport pump station. This is, uh, an LFUCG-owned, uh, pump station that the airport wanted to move ahead with. So this is a cost-shared project. ... the amount in the report, $600,000 is the city's share. It's a 50/50, uh, split. The airport will handle the bidding and the awarding, which should take place next month. And the, uh, and the committee will follow up on, uh, on that project and those processes. Uh, Water Quality Director Martin presented an update of a draft, uh, to th- an update of, of a, of a new erosion and sediment control ordinance, uh, which should be ready for council consideration in March of next year, and which, uh, the committee will review as it, as it does move forward and before it, uh, it comes to, to council. Finally, uh, Director Martin, uh, made a presentation on the expansion area two-way wastewater facilities project. That's a $7 million project, uh, which includes a 3.1 million grant from the state. Uh, this is a, a, a project that does, does really three things. It eliminates all five existing pump stations in the two-way sewer s- sewersed, uh, so that the, uh, uh, that the sewage flows to a new, uh, uh, two-way pump station, which , which then conveys the flow to the Elkhorn, to the North Elkhorn Pump Station. And from there, uh, either to West Hickman or to the Town Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant. The, uh, there, there are ongoing negotiations regarding the site of the, uh, expansion area two-way pump station, and these involve the, uh, uh, the question of the location of the, of, of the pump station itself, uh, on the, on the property that's been selected. Uh, the, uh, it is, it is bisected, uh, by the, uh, Urban Services, Rural Man- Management Services, uh, uh, boundary line. So there is a question of, of, of location, and there is a question of whether, uh, the government might purchase the entire, uh, the entire 80 acres, uh, or, or, or some portion of it. Uh, the, the, the committee will be receiving more information as these negotiations, uh, go forward on the slight, site selection, uh, on the, on the amount of property we might buy, and on the specific location of the pump station. That essentially is my report. I'd be glad to try to respond to any questions. Thank you. Any questions for Council Member Blues? All right. We'll move along, move along. Um, Council Member James, do you have the Special Intergovernmental Committee Report? Uh, yes, sir. The, um, report is in the packet, and there are no motions coming forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. The Service Committee met on December 1st at 1:00. We had three items that we dealt with. The first item was the address and fire gate identification and numbering. David Lewis for director of E911 outlined the changes of the draft that is in the packet, and the ordinances in the packet here. And a motion came out, a motion by Council Member Lane to move the revised warrants to the docket for council approval, second by Council Member Crosby passed without dissent, and I move forward. Second. I have a motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose no. Motion's approved. Thank you, Mayor. The second item was a private solar waste providers. Council Member Gordon gave some background information about this issue. She stated, "If we are going to get to zero waste, then it'd be nice to hear from the private haulers, so to see what they offer, see fees from the environmental quality," went over the recycling services provided by the private waste haulers. There's an attachment here in the packet. He stated, "They want to move in the direction of zero waste, that one of the first steps needs to be the baseline of services set." He stated, "That all that has been addressed at this point is a residential stream, and that 50% of the waste is generated from the commercial sector." Ms. Gordon asked, "What is the plan to go to waste-free by 2020?" And Mr. Fee stated, "Two of the major steps is first establishment of recycling organics collection service as a standard for all generators, and second, the development of either volume-based pricing structure for landfill-bound waste or mandatory cycling composed, composting of both residential commercial operators." A motion by Council Member Crowley to form a task force made up of representatives from the LFUCG Solid Waste from each private hauler company. Seed, Leaf, and council members were segment, Council Member Henson was passed without dissent, and I move this forward. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Ellinger and a second by Council Member Meyers. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. And I've given a list to the vice mayor for the task force, and he will, I assume, will be moving this forward soon. And then third issue, it was a loading and unloading, and Jim Woods traffic engineering stated, "At this point, public meetings are, are still occurring, and it would be best to wait until after the public meeting." He said, "There will be a conference report done after the means, and the report will be out possibly early spring. We're going to keep this in committee, and when Mr. Woods will come back once the comprehensive plan is complete, and then we'll go move from there." We adjourned at 1:55, and that was the end of the meeting. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Any questions for Council Member Ellinger? All right. You have in your packet the, uh, Lyric Theater monthly report. That is for information purposes only. If there are any questions, we'd be glad to address those now. All right. Let me welcome to the podium, uh, an individual familiar to all the members of the council, and that's Billy Van Pelt, who oversees the PDR program here, or Purchase of Development Rights program. Billy? Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to, um, make sure that everybody received this, uh, in their mailbox. Uh, this is information that we're required to give you each year as part of our report out, in terms of where we are with the PDR program. There is one additional farm that is now under contract in round eight that is not on your list. Currently, we're at 23,700 acres, plus the 126 acres that we just got a contract on today. 4700 per- 47% of the goal of 50,000 acres by the year 2020, and I think we'd all agree that our rural landscape is part of our global brand identity. I'll just, uh, go through these statistics briefly. Fayette County is the number two county in Kentucky for cash farm receipts at 387 million in 2006. Uh, sold a market value, uh, worth of farm products of 504 million in 2007. The largest cattle market east of the Mississippi River, uh, with 144 million in sales in 2006, and a significant number of jobs, and tax base, and related infrastructure. PDR protects the factory floor of the horse industry. Uh, the- the numbers that are sold annually at Keeneland sort of speak for themselves. 1.1 billion sold at Keeneland and Fasig-Tipton in 2007, $437 million in revenue, and 6,300 employees. It also pr- PDR also protects the factory floor of the tourism industry. There were $1.6 billion in expenditures in 2007 in Fayette County, supporting over 23,000 jobs with a payroll of over $529 million. Local tax receipts from tourism were almost 15 million in 2007, and this is largely due to the fact that we're within one day's driving distance of 75% of the US population, and we draw people to the region as a whole. The PDR program, uh, grew out of, uh, um, bro- an effort of a broad cross-section of the community that began meeting in the mid-90s to respond to ten-acre lot development that occurred in the rural service area. Um, there was an expansion of the urban service boundary in 1996 of 5,400 acres, but there was also quite a bit of ten-acre lot development between 1990 and 1998. We lost 2,700 acres of rural service area farmland to ten-acre lot development. If you took that 2,700 acres and made a perfect circle and put it inside the urban c- uh, inside of New Circle Road, uh, you could have, um, obtained 20,000 typical residential lots, but instead we got 429. So out of that, um, process and that, uh, eh, uh, the way the rural area was, uh, developed in ten-acre lots, the PDR program and the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan, uh, came into being. The goals of the PDR program are to purchase conservation easements on 50,000 acres out of 128,000 acres in the rural service area by the year 2020, so that horseshoe around the, um, urban service area has 128,267 acres approximately in it. We want to protect 50,000 acres, but this is only 27% of the land in Fayette County. Uh, PDR protects the agricultural and horse economies by preserving large critical areas of, uh, farmland, it protects our natural scenic open space and agricultural resources, and as I mentioned, our tourism economy and unique character. Uh, just a few of the major principles. It is a voluntary program. Uh, most la- rural landowners are eligible with a minimum of 20 acres. Uh, we use a priority order of acquisition that is in the ordinance. Uh, it's on our website, and you can read, uh, through the ordinance and see how we rank our farms and how the points are assigned. Uh, the major components. Uh, the ordinance was adopted by the council in January of 2000. Um, the ordinance also established the Fayette County Rural Land Management Board, which holds and purchases the conservation easements. Uh, that board is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council. Our ranking system is a land evaluation and site assessment point system, and of course, funding, which is what I'm usually talking to you about. Uh, this is our board. These are the- the groups that are represented and these are the individuals that serve representing each one of these groups. As you can see, it's a, it's a broad cross-section of the community, uh, and this i- this board is reflective of the group that started meeting in the mid-90s to work on the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan and the design and implementation of the PDR program. The Rural Land Management Boards solicit, uh, farm- ... acquires and holds conservation easements, prioritizes acquisitions, expense funds for these acquisitions, holds public information meetings and forums, solicits cash contributions and donated conservation easements. They also establish administrative procedures for the program. Our ranking system is heavily weighted towards agriculture. As you can see, it's weighted towards farm size, road frontage, um, neighbors that come together and apply in batches. Soil quality is 30 points out of th- the 80 that you see here, and if it's an active farm and if it has a number of agricultural improvements. It's also heavily weighted towards the environment, environmentally sensitive areas, greenway potential, linkages to other, uh, protected green spaces or conservation easements, historic resources, or reconsolidation of those farms that were 10 acre prior to the moratorium. But this is very important to, to note here, we also have minus points. We don't want to create the emerald choker around the urban service boundary that keeps it from expanding at the right time. I think our board acknowledges that this, uh, uh, the urban service boundary will grow, it will expand at some time. The question is when, where, and how. So we give minus points if farms are, um, close to the urban service area, if they're likely to be sewered, if they're at a federal highway or interstate interchange, but there are exceptions if you're a community icon or if you're in a blue line stream watershed. How do we value a conservation easement? We get an appraisal and what they do, they look at the raw land value prior to the conservation easement and the raw land value after the conservation easement. Improvements are not included as part of this valuation. The difference between those two numbers is the value of the development right that's given up. That's the value of the conservation easement. Uh, there's a recommendation made. All of our appraisals are also reviewed by the head of the State Appraiser's Board for accuracy and to make sure that they're being completed to the latest, um, accepted standards. And the board makes the offer to the farm owner. Funding, this is probably, um, one of the most important slides in the presentation. Uh, the funding, I think speaks for itself. We r- we've matched the local dollar at a one-to-one or two-to-one rate, and that our match grants are exceeding our local investment, and that, uh, our annual operating budget is approximately $1.1 million per year. Uh, as I mentioned at the beginning, um, we've added a farm, so that's actually 210 farms now, but, um, the, as the presentation states, 209 farms, 34 conservation easements, uh, 1570 of which were donated on 23,700 acres, 110 farms are equine, 86 general ag, and 13 other. I think the important thing to note here is, um, that we should not get, uh, caught up in the type of farm that's being preserved, but that the land is being preserved and that the soil is being preserved, because a horse farm today can be something else in the future or vice versa. The important thing is that we're protecting the land. Uh, the current round that we're in right now, round eight, had 52 applications on 4,814 acres, and we're taking applications. I have four applications on my desk for round nine. The deadline is December 15th. Uh, we're, we're also being compared to some pretty impressive places across the nation. Sonoma County, California; Marin County, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; Baltimore County, Maryland; Suffolk County, New York. Suffolk County actually had the first PDR program in the US, uh, and we're being recognized and compared with them as a mature, successful farmland preservation program. But farmland preservation is also a global issue. Um, other countries and provinces that are implementing farmland preservation programs throughout Canada, Australia, as well as China, but, uh, countries that don't have enough farmland that, that can't preserve it, they're actually buying farmland from other countries, um, by the millions of acres to secure their own food supply and to secure land for the production of biofuels. These are some of the countries that are, uh, taking those types of steps to secure their own farmland. Uh, just as a, as a side note, there are only, there are over 90 investment funds around the world that are investing in, uh, the purchase of farmland, and, uh, farmland, productive farmland is really seen as the oil of the 21st century. 10 benefits of the PDR program, as I mentioned earlier, protects our global brand identity, uh, protects our equine, tourism, and general agriculture industries, encourages infill and redevelopment of the urban service area, which lowers cost of services to the LFUCG, uh, supports reduction of our carbon footprint, supports, uh, our consent decree by protecting watersheds, helps us to retain a good bond credit rating. I've discussed this point, uh, specifically with Commissioner Rumpke. Um, communities that have a strong sense of who they are and where they're going and have a vision of where they're going have much better bond credit ratings that communities, um- ... that lack vision, that don't know where they're going, that have a, a great deal of sprawl, that don't really have a sense of place or a community identity. Um, our PDR program and the farmland that it protects attracts jobs and businesses because it is a quality of life issue. And as I mentioned, uh, it does protect the base of agriculture for future food, feed, and fuel. So, uh, without, uh, any other, uh, comments from me, I'd like to take questions from you, if you have any. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Van Pelt? Uh, Council Member Myers. I think Ms. James was first. Councilman- Oh. Okay. Okay. I guess I just wanna say, kinda set the stage for this budget year coming up, PDR is a, is a good program and I believe in what PDR does. I think this year we need to freeze PDR and not give them any more money this next budget cycle. I think we've got way too many issues that need to be dealt with and to continue bonding money for this, even though we're getting a match, I understand all that, but I think it's time that, that PDR gets a break, um, or, or relaxes for a year. And the reason I'm bringing this up today is because in the bond meeting the other day when we asked you about, um, what the $2 million that we voted to bond, you said that everything was already under contract. And so, if we don't get this conversation on the table now, you also said that you were starting to look for new contracts for next year, um, I'm gonna tell you that my vote this year is gonna be that we freeze PDR and not give you any money to bond next year. So, I hope that my colleagues will do the same and that we look at... Um, you know, I guess one question I would have and it's kind of rhetorical, but how many new jobs has PDR created? I understand that what you're talking about, other countries buying farmland from different countries and all that kind of stuff, but, but what, how many jobs has PDR created for our economy? And I know you're gonna go back to p- to, to tourism and all those things, but I think the bottom line is, it's time to give PDR a relax for a year. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Well, thank you, Mayor. I'd, I'd just like to add to that, that I think that will, uh, that will precipitate an interesting conversation because, uh, from my perspective, uh, the PDR program has, has shaped the way we've, we've, we've chosen to, uh, to grow, uh, has been an, and absolutely essential, uh, part of our economic development, uh, uh, program. Uh, I think it's time to continue, uh, the success we've had and move it forward. But, uh, so as I say, I, I, I, uh, Council Member Stennet will warn us not to debate this issue now, but- ... I do look forward to that conversation, uh, as we, as we look to, uh, FY11. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much, Billy. I also will look forward to that conversation. Um, I just had a couple of comments and one, uh, question. I think on page, um, well, the funding page, if we were interested, uh, you could give us the detail of the grants, which I find, I find this very interesting because I don't know of any other program that generates this much in grants. There, I suppose there could be a hidden one, but I don't think we've found it in government. It's, uh, pretty impressive, and I personally would like to maybe see some breakdown of those state, local, and federal, well, the grants that you've received, if you have that. Council Member Gordon, would it be appropriate? I do have that information here or I could send it to you. Okay. Bring it on. That'd be great. Um, thank you. And then, um, one of the things, um, I'm a pretty visual person and I know back in, uh, 1999 when we were discussing this and one of the things we talked about was the mass. Thank you. That one of the goals for this PDR program was to get mass. I'm not putting that very well, but, um, the map shows that we are meeting our goal, particularly in the north, sort of north-northeast quadrant. We're gaining a lot of mass there, which was one of the intents. I don't know if you have any comment on that or not. Well, uh, yes, I do. Um, critical mass is very important and we currently have 11 blocks of at least 1,000 acres or more in the rural service area. There's really no subjectivity to the conservation easement acquisition. It's all driven by the point system. And we meet, um, our, uh, usually on the first Monday of the month, and I would invite and encourage, uh, each and every one of you to attend our meetings. Um, so we, we, we, we are driven by critical mass, and you know, the, the top-ranked farms that receive offers from the board are based on acreage and proximity to other farms that are in the program. So from that standpoint, uh, I think we are headed in that direction. Um, the, there's the soil quality around the county varies, but there are some parts of the county that may not have, uh, 80% prime soils, but they have other cultural or environmental assets, um, that ... are -- that we should protect for other reasons. Uh, and I, I also think it's important that, yes, um, we, we are in a, a difficult budget time, but I think that if you, you know, if you look at the -- look at it the other way, as the, the glass is almost have -- is almost full. We're on -- we're halfway there, and, you know, we're, we're almost 10 years into the program. We're gonna be there in 10 years, so we can really see the light at the end of the tunnel. And the reality is, the sooner we can reach the goal, the, the sooner that we will know how we're gonna grow as a community, and I think that's something, that's another part of our vision. Well, ƒ my, my final comment is I think that is a tribute to the hard work of the people in the PDR program, you and Maynard Ferguson and the people on the Rural Land Management Board, as well as councils for all these years since 2000 who've been committed to this plan. I will say that, um, your scoring system is being looked at as a model by the Water Quality Fee Incentives Committee. We are working on our own scoring system because we've seen how a real objective scoring system can work for ranking projects. So the Water Quality Incentives Work Group, uh, I think maybe even someone has contacted you. I don't know if they have, but we're using this a- scoring as a model. So, um, thanks very much for being here. Council Member James. Thanks, Mayor. Thanks, Billy, for the presentation. Um, I know it was either a year or so ago, there was speculation that another surrounding county may, um, begin a PDR program. Do you know the progress of that? Yes, I do. Uh, Scott County has adopted, uh, a PDR ordinance, and they've also appointed their board. Woodford County has adopted an ordinance, and they've appointed their board as well. What does this do, um, with the, with the, um, competition for funding on a state and federal level? Well, on the federal level, um, it's based on demand, the, the number of farms that you have in the pipeline, the quality of those farms. Um, Woodford County is still early in their process. Scott County has, uh, partnered with the USDA as well, and they've received matching money as well. So what do you see for the fut- what do you... Uh, obviously, the Rural Land Management Board has probably discussed this. Um, and i- if it's similar to the National Housing Trust Fund, there's a flat amount or a, well, there's a, a mount given to a state for distribution. Sure. How do you, how do you see that relationship- It varies from year to year. ... working? Uh, and, you know, this is part of the farm b- farm bill. It's part of food security. Uh, so, you know, in terms of the long-term funding, we feel pretty good about that, but it does vary from year to year, in terms of what Kentucky's allocation is. Okay. So the USDA is based on food security, and, um, you talked during your presentation about how you don't really want us to focus on the type of farm. You really think green space is what we need to be, or as long as it's -- Uh, productive land that's- Okay. ... available for various types of farming operations. Okay. So if Scott County or Woodford County is more in the production of, um, food-based industry versus some other type of agriculture, which I don't know what those percentages are, but does that make them more apt to get the USDA funding and... Well, I think Woodford County's shoul- the number one ag county in the state, but they are very early on in their process. So, uh, in the near future, I don't... I, I, I think it's a good thing that we're preserving farmland regionally because I think that as we plan as a region, we're gonna be protecting farmland as a region and growing as a region. And as soon as we identify those areas where we're gonna preserve farmland that we can identify areas where we're going to grow. Okay. So I think it's, it's, it's a win-win that these other counties are, uh, establishing their own programs. Okay. And I, I remember having this conversation years ago, but I know, uh, you know, every day, especially when belt tightening is happening, is a, it's, it's a new opportunity to discuss this again. But please explain to me and to anyone watching who's brand new to the PDR program, why doesn't zoning take care of this as opposed to paying, um, property owners? Because zoning can be changed with eight votes on a Thursday night, and a conservation easement is permanent. Okay. So in, in other words, we had a 10-acre minimum from 1964 to 1998, and that was changed with eight votes to a 40-acre minimum, but we can vote again and go back to a 10-acre minimum. Okay. The conservation easement is what's protecting the land. Right. Okay. Um, I guess my, my thought is, m- my thought is, and I'll give it back to mayor, is, you know, uh, the budget also can be changed with, with eight votes of the council. So it doesn't, it really doesn't take the, take that much of a sting out of it when you, when you look at it. Um, it just, I don't know, it just really doesn't, it doesn't help balance it for me. Um, I think I'll, I'll have to be with Council Member Meyers, um, in this next budget cycle and, and not just because of that, but because, also, um, it... Part of the benefits of PDR is encourages infill and redevelopment, and we're not investing infill and redevelopment. We're not giving that balance. So if we're not developing there, we're not... We're paying people for not developing their property there- ... and we're expecting development to happen on the inside. Um, we're not investing any money there. One thing I'll just add that this land outside the urban service boundary can't be developed for non-ag uses. What we're doing is we're keeping it from being subdivided into 40-acre tracks and we're c- we're limiting impervious area. But if y- if you're gonna focus on infill and redevelopment and jobs and, and revitalizing the core, I think you have to have something to attract people here and something to keep people here. And that's definitely our brand that we talked about earlier, and it's the unique rural landscape we have. We... Because that is our business card. For some, it is. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, th- thanks for the update, uh, Billy. Uh, could you m- just answer a couple questions for me? I think, uh, this will be of interest to the viewing public out there. With regard to your operating costs for the PDR program, and, uh, I don't wanna brag on you, but you've reduced a lot of those costs and used a lot of technology to make it more efficient. Just discuss that for a second. Well, um, w- as part of our, um... A very positive thing that happened, uh, as an outcome of the management audit, we were, uh, combined with the Department of Public Works and Development, and we share staff in that department, which has helped a great deal. Um, we are, uh, utilizing, um, you know, we're sharing office space, we're sharing supplies, uh, from, so from that standpoint, our operating budget was completely eliminated from our FY10 budget request. Um, you know, we're doing everything we can to minimize cost. When, when I started with the program, uh, seven years ago, there were four employees in PDR. So we've, we've, um, greatly reduced the cost of the program, and I think th- there were a number of employees involved because we didn't know what we were gonna need. But now that we sort of have a pattern and a, and a rhythm for how the program is going to operate and we have, um, everyone in accounting and in finance and in GIS and that assists me in, in operating the program, uh, has enabled us to reduce those costs. Um, the other question I had, you have ha- been very successful in receiving federal grants. Why do you, what do you attribute that to that we've been so successful in that area and getting matching money for the money we're putting up, Irvin County government? Well, th- the, the relationship that we've developed with the feds has, has taken i- it's taken eight years. We've gone from 150,000 in 2001 to, uh, you know, $2 million today. And, uh, that's ebbed and flowed over the, the course of our eight-year relationship, but I think it's, it's, it's definitely based on our track record, it's based on the quality of the soils that we're preserving. We have the second highest, the second fastest closing rate of any farmland preservation program that they fund in the United States and as, a- and our rate that we get farms under easement. Mm-hmm. And so that's what they like to, to brag on their success too. They like to partner with, uh, someone that's gonna make them look good. Okay. Th- that's my last question. I think I'd like just to make a slight comment about what our commitment's been to the infill and redevelopment in the downtown, and I think if you look at Limestone, Main Street, and Vine Street, we just approved streetscape plans there, which... Probably about $25 million worth of investment in the heart of downtown. I would say that's a significant investment, and we were able to get matching funds on many of those items. So, um, that's been very good. And then I think also we've improved, uh, three TIF programs and we have a fourth one in the pipeline. That's another commitment to the downtown, uh, infill area. And I ve- I feel that, you know, a balance between the rural area and infill and redevelopment is appropriate, and I c- I strongly support the PDR program and I thank you for all your work. Thank you. That's all I've got, Billy. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I think it's, um... It... W- we always, the appropriate thing is, to do is to thank those who present to us, and I'll do that as well today, uh, Billy. Um, I do wanna comment on the, the, um... I think the intr- the interesting or compelling thing about this conversation is the success. And I know, v- I'm, I myself have often cited the leadership that you've provided, um, in the management of this program and the advocacy, um... Those who have advocated for it, uh, as a pretty good example of effective advocacy and management. And what we have also talked about... Frank, glad to see you here, because you and I have had several conversations about... And Billy, you and... We, we have too, and I think about this, this so important balance and how important it is to focus intentionally, deliberately, creatively, imaginatively on the core, which is what I think we're hearing today, is that we haven't seen the same level of... ... of attention of effective advocacy for, F-O-R, for urban infill and development. And I, for one, am okay fully with the suggestion that we have to have this conversation 'cause, you know, um, sometimes regrettably, uh, it's a success that causes us to examine things that we otherwise might not. And so taking, we gotta take the blinders off and look at how we are doing, what we're doing, where we're going with the entire strategy of preserving the rural landscape and that brand and at the same time, building the core. And y'all have been willing to do that, and I for one at least appreciate it. So thank you. Any further questions for Mr. Van Pelt? All right, thank you very much. Takes us down to council reports. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Mayor. Just have, uh, on behalf of Council Member Cordt, a couple of walk-ons for NDF tonight. I believe those were already approved, but I wanna get these two on there. Uh, the first one is to add Bluegrass Community Foundations, uh, in the amount of $1,500 to be used to assist in building a healthier Lexington through promotion of recreation, leisure opportunities, and facilities of Fayette County. And the second one to add to the NDF was for Stonewall Community Association, enhancement of lighting in their neighborhood for $500. So moved. Second. Have a motion and second to add those two items to the NDF list. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. I have a few things as well. Uh, last week at the end of our work session, uh, we had some discussion on some, uh, uh, on an item that was not on the agenda, and, um, I went through Robert's Rules. I was trying to find out whether or not there was anything in there that said that we cannot discuss anything that is or is not on, that is not on the agenda, and I couldn't find anything. So I asked our clerk if she could do some research for us, and, um, I don't know that she could really find anything. I know, oh, she's here, so in case we have any questions. Um, I think that possibly we might need to try and define this a little better so when, if it comes up again. I could find that if we have a special meeting, we cannot... It's, it's clearly defined that if we have a special council meeting that we cannot discuss anything that is not on the agenda during a special council meeting, but not during a regular council meeting. Um, and I don't know if Susan wants to comment any further on this, but I, I think that, I know that she's contacted maybe some other, um, uh, cities that are comparable to us in this regard. And I don't know if you have any information to share, but it might be worth us trying to more clearly define what we do in case this comes up again. I spoke with, uh, 10 different second and third class cities across Kentucky, and, uh, they, uh, sundry... There was about four different ways that that was dealt with. Uh, one city, two cities actually put a notation on the docket to the effect that either they will allow a, a person to speak, but that no staff or counsel is going to respond. And the other puts the action on there and the, um, they, they actually discuss the items, but they don't make any, any action. They don't take any action. But one city actually in, in, put it into their, uh, rules and procedures where they added it, where that the public comment would be ale- be allowed, but that there would not be any motion or action taken. Um, the other, there's two cities that actually have a complaint or request for service forms that they have available at the council meetings, and they allow the public to speak. And what they do is they ask the public to fill out the forms, and then at the end of the meeting, then the form is resp- is sent on to the appropriate division or form of gov- area of government that's dealing with that for responses or action. And then the remainder of the cities, uh, they pretty much allow the discussion, and there is, there is, um, nothing written in their parliamentary procedures to that effect. Uh, there's one other that actually they, they require a motion to be made in order for discussion to be taken, to take place. W- it seems like there's several different options we have available to us and maybe too much for us to discuss during a work session. So maybe I could just make the motion that we take this up after break and put it into intergovernmental committee, um, to try and find the best option for us to handle this. So I'll make a motion that we, uh, put this in intergovernmental committee and maybe ask the clerk at that time if she could come back and we can determine what's the best option for us. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Crosby and a second by Council Member Ellinger to refer the item of public comment and appropriate action to the, uh, intergovernmental committee. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And then, um, also regarding what came up last Thursday night, it's my understanding that we were gonna have a presentation on that today at work session. And I was just curious, are we having that presentation? I know we got, uh, some information, um, from Commissioner Rumpke, but I don't know if we're hav- when is that formal presentation gonna be? Commissioner Bennett was gonna make that as part of the mayor's report. Under, excuse me? The mayor's report. Okay, great. Thank you. And then, uh- Also, I'm looking forward to having you with me tomorrow afternoon, uh, on the District Seventh, uh, Ride Along. And lastly, I just wanna congratulate the Lexington Christian Academy Eagles for winning the state football championship this weekend. I'm hoping after the break, this is their first state football championship. They've only been a pro- um, they've only had a program for eight years, and I'm hoping maybe after the break, um, usually we try to get programs that win state championships in, so I'm hoping already maybe we can, uh, get the Cochrans and some of the team in after we get back from break. So thank you very much. That's all I have. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I have got a, uh, a series of announcements of upcoming events starting tomorrow night. Uh, 6:00 PM, uh, tomorrow, December the 9th, the St. Martin's Village Christmas party will, will take place in the park shelter in Whitney Young Park. On Thursday night, December 10th, 6:00 PM, the, uh, the meeting for, for the Georgetown Street Neighborhood Association and St. Martin's Village with, uh, officials from LFUCG and Bluegrass Community and Technical College to, uh, to, to update and inform the neighborhoods on the changes that are coming to, uh, uh, to their, to their direct area. Uh, as Bluegrass Community and Technical College prepares to, uh, to move to what is now the, uh, Eastern State Hospital campus, uh, it's, it's really important that all the, the, the, the, the neighbors immediately surrounding, uh, the college, uh, have an idea of how the, how the college is going to impact them, the challenges, the opportunities, uh, and, and, and the ways that they can be involved in the planning for this transition. And the first step in that is being well-informed, so I encourage all the residents of the neighborhood to come to this meeting, 6:00 PM in the Orear Center in Douglas Park. That's tomorrow night. At 7:00 PM tomorrow night, the Melrose Oak Park Neighborhood Association will meet, uh, for their monthly meeting in Thompson Road Baptist Church. Saturday, uh, December 12th, a couple of events. The, uh, the sixth annual senior luncheon sponsored by the Green Acres Hollow Creek and Brecker Ridge Neighborhood Association will take place at 1:00 PM at the, at the Park Community Center on LaSalle Drive. For further information about that event, uh, let me give you a couple of phone numbers, th- that, uh, uh, uh, where you can get that, uh, that update. Uh, 299-0356 or 539-2107. That's for information on the, uh, annual senior luncheon in Green Acres Park. The same evening, 6:00 PM, the Highland Neighborhood Association will, will, will host its annual, uh, Christmas party at the community center in the park on Mark Avenue. Then next Monday evening, , December 14th, Radcliffe Marlboro Holiday reception- Leysway neighborhood will meet at Blacktown Church with the, with, with the, with the contractor for the, uh, for the sewering project that will begin this winter in the neighborhood. Uh, this is an important m- meeting to, uh, to inform the neighbors of, of, uh, of what will be a relatively brief, but, uh, of, of course, a project that's gonna, uh, gonna cause some, some disruption. So to meet with the contractor and with, uh, with our engineers and water quality people to, uh, to get the information on the timeline, on the, on the details of the project, and to answer questions. Again, 7:00 PM Monday, December 14 in Blacktown Church. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Wallace. Thank you, Mayor. Um, first of all, I wanna announce that the South Hill, Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association meeting is at 6:00 PM tonight at the First United Methodist Church. Um, and I regret I won't be able to attend 'cause we have a council meeting. Um, also, there is a tre- a tree in front of, um, Buddy's on, in Chevy Chase and in front of Joseph Beth that has wishes on it from elderly people in the community that, um, for the most part, they're very simple wishes. They're, um, for Christmas gifts. So if you're around there, please stop and take one of those. Um, many of 'em don't have family or other support systems. So, um, also on Sunday, December the 13th, on the porch of 54 Mintail Park, the Buckner family will be having their annual cocoa and confection sale to benefit the Salvation Army. And the Buckner children will be taking that money and depositing it into the, um, red kettle uh, at the Salvation Army. And then on a more serious note, um, I saw that there was a- ... a fire last night where I believe eight Transy students live. And, uh, by chance, one of them was awake- May I comment? ... and was able to get all of 'em out safely. Um, but it was one of those tragedies that could have been far worse. Um, and so just putting it out there. Thank you. Council member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, since this is our last meeting b- before our break, I just wanted to wish everyone a happy holiday and new year. I'm sure I'll talk to some of ya and maybe, um, or maybe see you, but if not, I just wanted to send those wishes along and, um, I wanted to give the results of the Salvation Army bell ringing. Oh, great. Um, I see Chief Hendricks back there, so I really appreciate everyone that helped, but we raised $637.90 total. Um, we do have more money than that, but they are unable to locate Vice Mayor Gray's kettle. You just had to tell that for everybody. I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the overall winner was Council Member Meyers- Ah. ... so he did real good. And he actually, in one hour, raised $157.77. Wow. So thanks to all of you. It ain't hype if you deliver, is it? Congratulations. Well done. As you said, I saw that you Someone told me to- Moving right along. Congratulations. And, and Council Member Henson, thanks for, um, all the time you devoted to being there and making sure everybody was showing up at the appointed time, and, um, making it work. Thanks. Council Member James. Thanks, Mayor. Just a couple of announcements. Tonight at seven o'clock at the Living Arts and Science Center, the Martin Luther King neighborhood and the William Wells Brown neighborhood associations will have a joint meeting. Uh, this is a holiday celebration as well as a scarf and hat, um, donation drive for the LTMS students. So they're doing a, a goodwill project as part of their holiday celebration, so I appreciate those neighborhoods and try to make it out there at seven o'clock, um, and enjoy that camaraderie there. Um, also wanted to remind council members, Mayor, um, anyone else that's interested, on Thursday, December 10th, this Thursday, 10:00 AM, fifth floor conference room here at the Government Center, um, we will have the paratransit transportation meeting. Um, this will have stakeholders, the, um, anyone that deals anything with paratransit has been invited. Um, we've, um, sent out a questionnaire, um, to try to progress the meeting. LEXTRAN will be there to talk about the transportation dollars, federal dollars, and the guidelines of that, and we'll talk about how we can, um, fill in the gaps where, where it pertains to our paratransit here. So please show up there. We're expecting it to be about a two-hour meeting at 10:00 AM on Thursday, um, in the fifth room, fifth floor conference room. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. Um, December 15th, which is next Tuesday, at, uh, 6:30 PM at the Gainesway Community Center over off of Center Parkway, the eighth district is having its eighth district potluck for this Christmas holiday season. And everybody's invited, even if you don't live in the eighth district. You just have to bring some type of food with you or drink or something. So we look forward to everybody coming out for that. And I just wanted to say thank you to, to, um, Council Member Henson for putting that together. It was a lot of fun to do that, to ring the bell for an hour and I hope we can actually do that again before Christmas is over and they stop doing that. But it, it was really fun and exciting to do, so thank you very much. Is this best two out of three or- Yeah. All right. Thank you. Does any other council member wish to make a report? All right. I have, uh, a few odds and ends. Let me begin by, um, requesting motion to approve the various appointments that have been tendered to you. Have a motion by Council Member Lane, second by Council Member James. Any discussion? Council Member Crosby. Um, I don't have any, um, discussion on any of the appointments specifically. I would just like to request, 'cause once again, when I was going through looking at the appointments and the forms that they filled out, some of them are not complaint, complete. I don't have any intention because I actually know the people personally, so I feel comfortable with them, but I would just like to request that when you are turning them into us, that if they are asked to give references, that they fill out their references. Um, there are people on here who haven't completely filled out the forms and I don't see what the purpose is if we're go- going to ask them to fill it out and they don't completely fill it out. You can find them if you're looking under, um, the Lyric Theater. There are a few under there who have not, but I feel comfortable with the appointments who did not fill them out because I personally know them, so, um, I just feel like that oftentimes we get forms that aren't complete and I know that I've brought this up several times, so could we please just make sure- ... through the process. It just makes it a little easier for us when we're having to vote on them if they're complete forms. Thank you. We have been trying to do a more complete job of encouraging people to get their information to us. In some instances, it has been much slower. The lyric is one example of that, and, um, we thought it was important to try to go ahead and bring forward these recommendations because there is some work, especially for that board and, um, uh, the Water Quality Appeals Board. Well, and I understand that it's hard because sometimes you're, you're having to rely on people to fill this out, but, um, if they can't fill out the form and, and do it, then... a- a- and you've requested them to do it, then I would almost hold it up before bringing it forward because if you're asking them to do something, it's... if they just don't do it and they've forgotten, it's one thing, but, um, if they're just not going to do it, then I... in the future probably I would, I would be, um, hesitant to probably put them through. All right. Thank you. Any other discussion? All then in favor of approving the recommended appointments, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. Um, second, I wanted to address the issue that Councilmember Lawless brought up a few moments ago, and that was about the, um, fire that took place over on North Broadway. I have gotten a report from our folks in code enforcement, and, um, you may be interested to know that that property has today been condemned because it consisted of several fire code violations along the lines that we have been trying to identify and prosecute as rapidly as we can. Um, this is a good example to, to raise again about the enormous importance of these fire code violations. To the extent you are aware of properties in your districts that you think may be, um, inappropriately operating as boarding houses or lodging houses, please give us those addresses and we will try to proceed with inspections as promptly as we can. Unfortunately, we don't have an army of inspectors and we can't get around to all of them as rapidly as we would like. And we have been trying to work with the Home Builders Association, the University Housing Association, and other groups in the community to make them aware of their obligations. Unfortunately, as we saw in this particular instance, there appear to be a number of people who aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing yet. And to the extent we can encourage them to, um, abide by, especially the fire code and, and hopefully the zoning code requirements as well, we will do what we can to, to do so. So give us addresses of places that you think may be operating in appropriately, and we will follow up. Us... Uh, the third thing, in addition to the appointments and, and the North Broadway situation, I have left in your boxes, um... or, or folks on my staff have left in your boxes this afternoon a proposed ordinance, which I would appreciate your considering over the break. It is an ordinance that is designed to require folks who lobby urban county government to, um, file reports disclosing the individuals or entities for whom they are lobbying and what matters they are lobbying about. Uh, the general idea is to try to parallel the state requirements to the fullest extent possible so that it will be a, a framework that is familiar to those people who lobby on the state level. But, um, I would appreciate you taking a look at that over the break. It's not something that we need to try to address today. But when we get back, I would appreciate your feedback on, um, how that proposed ordinance might be improved so that we could go ahead and address that the first part of the year. And then last but not least, the issue that, um, Council Member Crosby raised a few moments ago. Uh, I've asked, um, Commissioner Bennett to, um, give you just a little bit of a rundown on the vacation time issues that were, were brought up last week. And, um, then we'll answer whatever questions you may have. Thank you, Mayor. Good afternoon. Uh, I don't have a formal presentation for you. This is a fairly, at least on the, on the face of it, fairly simple issue. What we've had the last three years leading up to this year, uh, our situations in the division of enhanced 911, where employees have accrued excess vacation time over and above the amount the ordinances allow them to carry over. Uh, and council is granted in each of those three years special dispensation to let them carry over the extra hours for one quarter into the new fiscal year. Any hours that they don't use by the end of that quarter are then forfeited or, or lost. Um, as I said on the surface, it seems to be a fairly simple issue. What I would remind you is this is not an enhanced 911 issue. This is a government wide issue. Um, the division of enhanced 911 is not the only division where this occurs. Uh, and I want to make sure that, that the employees in that division know that my, um, decision not to recommend that you do that, do the, uh, extension again this year was not aimed at them, but it was an effort to bring equity among all the employees of the government. When I stood here about this time last year and asked you to extend their vacation times, I committed to you at that time that I wouldn't be back asking you to do it again. We did it for three years. Um, it continued and it put them really, uh, at an advantage over all the other employees in the government. As of today, there are over 200 other employees in the government, other civil service employees, who have over 200 hours of vacation time accrued. The maximum that can be carried over is 168. Some of them may be able to use their time and get down to the 168, others probably won't. Um, and that two- that 200 plus is only the people who have more than 200 hours. People between the 168 cutoff and 200, there is a substantial number of those. Uh, so it really becomes an equity issue. The ordinance, uh, section 21-33 of the Code of Ordinances only permits a carryover of 168 hours, and that's been in existence since 1978. Um, as I said, council has granted the special exemption for the last three years. The only other instance that I'm aware of during that period of time that council has granted an exception is for the people who were working on what was then called the STARS Project, what's now Project Synergy Peoplesoft, uh, due to the exorbitant amount of time those people were putting in and not being able to, uh, to take their time. As far as leave accruals, most of the people, um, who are in the division of 911, Enhanced 911, that, that have talked to you, um, accrue 168 hours vacation each year. They accrue 120 hours of holiday time. Then that's six weeks, six weeks worth, or excuse me, four weeks worth of vacation time, 120 hours worth of holiday time, that's an additional three weeks. And they accrue the holiday time because one of two things happens, either because of the schedule they're working that day, or the holiday's their regular day off. So they don't get to take it off as, as a normal employee would, so they accrue it. So that seven weeks worth of time each year that the employee has, um, to take, if they, if they've carried over all their, their time into that year, um, that they have to take without losing any. What you've been asked to approve by the employees this year, uh, as far as carryover is an average of two weeks' vacation time. Uh, the carryover is as little as five hours in one instance. It's as much as four weeks in another instance. Holiday and vacation time, and, and I wanna make sure you understand that, that we've not attempted to penalize these employees and keep them from taking their time off this year. Uh, uh, I want you to understand that we've tried to work with them to, to get them time off. Time off in, in, uh, this location have, has averaged right at six weeks vacation and holiday time this year, average. That ranges from as little as three weeks for one employee up to nine weeks for another. So it's not as if we've consciously gone into this trying to penalize these folks and not let them have some time off with their families, time off to relax and, and clear their heads. We all need that. So the real issue is, um, to date, to my knowledge, there has never been a blanket extension of the vacation leave carryover cutoff. We also have cutoffs on holiday time. We also have cutoffs on compensatory time for the, uh, exempt employees. So each of these banks of leave has a maximum amount of time each of the employees can carry over from year to year. It's 168 hours for vacation, 80 hours for holiday, and 80 hours for comp time. And the comp time is pay period to pay period. So people who put in a lot of hours every pay period lose time the way these employees potentially would lose time at the end of the year with the vacation cutoff. In the end, it's council decision. Uh, so I'll, I'll leave it in your hands, but I just wanted to give you a little bit of, of background information, uh, to help you make an informed decision, and I'll be glad to answer any questions. Are there questions for, uh, Commissioner Bennett? Yes. Uh, Councilmember Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner, thank you for- Yes. ... presenting this to us today. I have a quick question. When you started out talking about the ordinance- Mm-hmm. ... it sounded like you said that the ordinance allowed, um, persons to roll over time for the first quarter. It allows, it allows employees to carry over from year to year a maximum of 168 hours vacation time. If an employee at the end of the calendar year has accrued 200 hours, for example, they lose the difference between the 168 and the 200 if they haven't taken it. You, you mentioned something about the first quarter though. Could you... I'm, I'm sorry, the... In, in this, in the case of, of the Enhanced 911 employees for the last three years, council has extended the cutoff date from December 31st to the following March 31st. So they've effectively given them an additional three months to take off the excess balance that they had, uh, at the end of the calendar year. At the end of that three months, if they haven't been able to take the excess time, they lose it, or have lost it. So is, is that what happened though? In some cases, yes. In some cases, the employees were able to take all their excess time during that three-month period. In some cases, the employees actually lost time at the end of that three-month period. Not in many cases, but in a few cases. Okay. And so, for the employees who l- who lost time during that first quarter- Mm-hmm. ... and they still were able to accrue enough hours in that year that they had to roll over again the next year? Yes, sir. Okay. I'm gonna stop there and let other people ask some questions. I may have some later questions. Okay. One, one additional thing I, I'd like to add about the three years, th- during which the extension was given, as I said, the time they were allowed to, to carry over the time and use an extra three months to try to take it off, if they separated from service during that three months, they didn't get paid for the excess time. So they were still limited to, to the 168 hours as far as payout at retirement or at resignation. Could I ask a follow-up real quick? Um, are there enough employees in that department that if all those employees that rolled over and had that first quarter to take the time off, would they be able to take off the time that they had to take off? If it's rolled into the first quarter of calendar 10- I don't know, frankly. Uh, because we have some vacant, we have at least one vacancy, uh, in one of the key slots. Uh, we've had one employee who's been off for an extended period of time for other reasons. So, I, I, can't commit that if we allow them an additional quarter that all of them still get to use their time. It'll be just a scheduling challenge. Okay. I'm thinking more in the past, not- Oh- ... not making that recommendation for this coming year. Okay. But in the past, has there been enough time, ha- there been enough employees that the people who rolled over, that we allowed to roll over for that first quarter, they were allowed to take it off during that quarter? Typically, yes. As I said, other than a, a couple or three in- isolated instances, they typically were, were allowed to take it off during that quarter. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Council member Lawless. Thank you. Um, I'm curious to know, it sounds like you're understaffed. In some cases, yes. And, and it's been some staffing challenges over the years. I won't, and I won't, uh, deny that. And so, because of it being understaffed, these people were not able to take their vacation. Yes. And these are positions that are essential, like fire and police. Mm-hmm. Unlike the other, a lot of other employees where if something that, you know, if they have to take some time off, it's easy to get somebody to do their job for 'em. These are h- s- highly trained, specially trained people, and only they can do the job. It's b- it's becoming more of a challenge as we move forward, not only in 911, but in other divisions. As we face budget challenges, as we hold vacant positions open and don't fill them, we have a smaller employee pool to get what we all hope is the same amount of work done. So, it's becoming more of a challenge government wide to be able to cover for times off without having to pay overtime, which obviously is a budget impact. Um, so, y- yes, in their case, that certainly is, is the situation, but it's gonna be, it has become and will become more, I think, um, the norm across government that we have those challenges. Well, across government, I understand and, and we're in a really tight situation, but I also know having been a crisis line, staffed a crisis line for mid- over 30 years, and the fact that they can't say, "Oh, well, I've got vacation time. I'm gonna take it." And 911 not being there or somebody from another department being able to fill in for them because they're not trained, that this is a special circumstance. And, um, it concerns me that our 911 employees are understaffed and that that additional stress and burden is placed on the existing employees by not being able to take time off and also the stress they're under by staffing that phone. I w- I would ask you to keep in mind though, it's not that they're not able to take time off. They've taken time off. They haven't been able to take the equivalent of two years worth of time off in one year. But when you've got employees taking off nine weeks, that's a pretty sizable chunk of time that they've, they've gotta make up for- I, I don't understand. ... lost. What do you mean the equivalent of two years? If you let 'em carry over from one year to the next- Okay. ... plus what they earn during the year they carry that into- Mm-hmm. ... you, you, you could potentially have the equivalent of two years worth of time that the employee would be trying to take off during that one year or at the end of that year, they're gonna have an excess amount of time to roll to the following year. And you basically have a perpetual issue. How much time... How many employees were able to take their time? Or who weren't able to take their time- There were, there, there are- ... due to lack of staffing? There are 12 that without an extension would lose some vacation time- And- ... in ni- in Enhanced 911. And they lost that because there w- Because- ... there were, there weren't adequate people to do the job. Overall, yes. So- In some isolated situations, I would debate that with you, but overall, yes. So, basically, they gave up something pretty substantial to protect our city. Mm-hmm. And, um, I think that when we look at not hiring and not filling and freezing positions, these are just the kind of positions that we can't afford not to. And, you know, burnout and staffing these 911 lines, um, we need to take care of those employees. So, um, I'd like to hear more about what can be done so that they can take adequate time off, so that they can continue to have a healthy, functional family life and, um, not burn out. Thank you. Council member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Commissioner Bennett, were you, um... It seems to me there was a year when the council approved community corrections carrying over, and it was before they were covered by collective bargaining. I don't- Y- yes. Because in- I don't know who were the commissioner at that time. I think that was probably back in the early 2000s, uh, is my guess. So- Back during the periods when they were having roughly 40% turnover rates. And they, they had, uh, mandatory overtime. Correct. Um- And I think that, as I recall, there was only one year where that was approved. Okay. I, I couldn't remember. I think it was. What, when an employee is hired, what is the agreement that the government strikes with them in terms of vacation time? For the first 10 years of their employment, typically, they w- they earn 10 hours per month, three weeks per year vacation time. They can carry over 168 hours of that from year to year. And do we- Then after 10 years of, they accrue annual leave at the rate of 14 hours per month, or 168 hours per year. Do we, the government, um, i- in the agreement, do we tell them they'll be able to take vacation time or simply that they'll be able to earn it? Do we give any hope o- that if I, if I sit down to be hired today, do, am I given any hope that I will be able to take my vacation time or simply that I'll earn it? I think the only guarantee you have is that you'll earn it. I don't know that there's a guarantee that given staffing demands you'll be able to take it off. And back to- Nothing in writing that I'm aware of. ... uh, a point that was already touched on. How many of the E-911 employees have been denied a request for vacation time? They asked to take off and they were denied it. I don't know the answer to that, but my guess is the majority of these 12. Okay. Um, well, I, I think as a, I mean, my opinion is as a government, if we tell people they can earn vacation time, we should allow them the opportunity t- to take it. And, and we do, Council Member Gordon. But, but if we're denying it to some people, then I think what that means is what Council Member Lawless said, is we're understaffed in a critical area. And so, um, I, I mean, I, I realize the economic times we're in, but I think it's basically a fairness issue to our employees that if they request vacation time and it doesn't compromise the workings of the division, they should get it off. And if it does compromise it, then we need to be sure we're properly staffed there. So, uh, thank you for being here. Council Member Hinson. Thank you, Mayor. Um, is, when a person is hired, is the vacation hours the dollar amount in the budget per personnel cost? I would say no. A- and I would say that no only because typically, uh, if you're staffed appropriately and an employee takes vacation time, the cost of that vacation time is basically part of the salary that's in there. There's not a separate line item in the budget- Okay. ... for vacation time or the cost of vacation time that I'm aware of. 'Cause I guess I was thinking where they, or the 911 call center is different from other divisions because they have to be there 24/7. They have no choice. And if they're denied vacation because the understaffing or whatever, I, I would just think there would be an alternative, like, uh, a, if they're gonna lose it, then they get a certain percentage in dollars of the dollar amount or something like that. I don't know what other cities do, but I see them as being unique to the government because, um, I mean, there might, other divisions are on call or might have to work a Saturday or Sunday, but they're, they have to be manned 24/7, just like a hospital or the police, fire, so forth. But they've got collective bargaining. So I don't know. I, I don't know if we could put this in committee to look at it or, you know, I w- I wanna be fair to all government employees, but they have a uniqe s- unique situation. Yeah. Thank you. Council Member Stinnet. Thank you, Mayor. I certainly agree of the s- severity of the position they carry and if we lose staff, you know, if we don't have staff even in the critical need to fill those positions, I guess I've got a couple practical questions. One, if council is to grant this, uh, for the first quarter, the first 90 days of the fiscal year, how are we gonna allow... I mean, I'm looking down the list. We have four weeks, three weeks, three weeks, three weeks, three weeks. I mean, how are we gonna allow 'em all to actually use the time, practically? As a practical matter, I don't know that we can. I mean, we'll work with 'em to the extent we can, but as a practical matter, I don't know that we can give them a promise that during this next quarter, you're gonna be tak- be able to take all these hours off. I mean, that's 480 work hours for the first 90 days and I don't know how you'd even schedule that. I don't know if you all, have you even tried? I mean, if we grant that, obviously, you're gonna have to figure out a way. Have you all looked at that? Not at this point, because we hadn't anticipated the extension. Well, and you alluded to at the beginning of your, uh, comments that last year you said this would be the last time you're coming back to us. Well, that's my point is, is why are you coming back today? Why are we having this conversation? I know you're not coming back and asking for it- Right. ... but we still got the problem. We still got management issues in 911. I know you and I have talked about it for three years now. Since we created this division five years ago, I think now it's maybe six, we pulled it from we pulled it from police. This is just another issue that goes into the pot o- of problems we're having in 911. You know, Council Member Hinson alluded to putting this issue into committee, but, you know, we've had these i- this is just another issue in this area. So what are we gonna do the next 12 months not to have this happen again? What's gonna change between now and next year? If we carry it over or if we don't? Either way. I mean if- If, if- Either way, it doesn't matter because if we do carry it over, they can't use it anyway 'cause there's not enough days in the week t- to be able to get everyone off. But what's gonna change between now and next time this year, regardless of our decision? In terms of staffing, frankly, I don't know. Hopefully, we're gonna, we're gonna have the person back who's been on extended leave. That provides some relief and gives us some ability to get some people off. Uh, we have one position we had been holding open. Depending on the budgetary constraints, we'll look at filling that, um, at which would give us, as I recall, correct me if I'm wrong, ladies, five... The primarily, primary issues are in the supervisor ranks, uh, which would give us, at that point, five supervisors and a location manager. And where we are right now is basically three supervisors, which doesn't give relief for people to be able to get off. If I may start to speak, um, good afternoon, everyone. Thanks. Would, would you mind stepping up to the mic? Oh, yeah. Sorry. You may remember me from last week. My name's Tracy Wells. Um, since he asked, I'll offer up, um, even... It's always been... I've worked in this division since '96, and you'll have to excuse me, I don't know off the top of my head, I mean, as long enough to, you know, to have a opinion on this, but... And the whole time I've worked for whether it was police or combined unit, um, 'cause I started out my career as a police dispatcher, we've never really had what I would consider, if you're asking me, a person that's in the trenches every day, enough personnel where if you had a couple people wanting off and somebody else call in sick, that it wouldn't create an issue of some sort or another. So if you're asking my personal opinion, even if those persons that have been out on fam-... you know, whatever issues they've had, come back from work, um, we could always still use more. It's the... I know... I w- I always find it ironic when I read the newspaper about staffing shortages with police and fire, but I'm thinking, the little-known secret is, is the people that answer your phones, uh, I mean, if, if you take... They have 500. We have maybe 20. So if you don't have enough people to answer the phones, it's not gonna matter how many police and fire you have, if they can't get the calls to come in. Um, we've always been critically understaffed. It's just, I think now, um, it's become such a huge problem because of other things. And now I'm at, uh, fire where it's even more of a problem. Police personnel have not been affected by this. It's just the fire personnel that have been. And it's, uh... I gave the notes that I... It's not a matter of I've been playing poor. I put in for time at the beginning of the year when I'm told... As soon as I'm told I can put in for time, I put in for time. And I have had... I've had one vacation this year, and in the middle of that vacation, I got denied one day. I went to the beach. Um, I was actually considering, um, coming home early. I didn't... This is what happened. I was gonna leave the beach, drive home by myself with my young son, leave the rest of the family there at the beach, to be back on the one day that I got denied of being off. Well, as it turned out, I got a s- second-degree sunburn and ended up having to call out sick. So I ended up not having to drive home. I mean, I couldn't drive home. You can't drive home from Delaware with a second-degree sunburn. And I had a migraine headache and... But, th- that's the only time that I've had more than five days off this last year. The rest of the time, all my time has either been given in increments. Now, I suggest to you, if you say, "This is the time I need off for vacation or any type of break of whatever," and you're com-... And I- I'm not real- I'm really not complaining. I love my job and I've done what I had, you know, to help, because when it's come to me, "Okay, this is how we're gonna get you some time off. You can come, uh, be off from 10:00, but we need you to be at work at 4:00 in the morning." What kind of vacation is that to you, I suggest, if you're h- at home with your family? I still... Working night shift, I have unique, um, problems that somebody working day shift may not. I still have to plan on sleeping. You know, I have to get some sort of rest before I go into work. So if I'm o- off on vacation, but still have to be at work at 4:00 AM, I still have to plan on the amount of rest. I can't stay up all day. So it's not really been that much a vacation or a holiday time. And I know, it's really... I mean, I suggested it's not really his fault or Mr. Lucas's fault. It's just, uh... It's always been a problem, and I think now, it's just, uh, something that people are recognizing more, because I'm not typically one to complain. And it's just been, you know, recently that it's become enough of an issue where... 'Cause this is the first time that I've ever been told, "You're not gonna get your time." You're not gonna get your time. I've alw- And it's not like I've ever carried any over beyond the 168. I've always been able to get it down to the 168. So this is all newly accrued time this last year. But, you know, I'm not gonna... And to say, think something different's gonna happen next year, but this is... Because if it's gonna make, you know... I think the thought here is if we say, "Okay, that's it, 168, that's gonna make it better, and next year, we won't have to do this to this division," I, I put before you that that's probably not gonna be the case. Because unless you can... To do my job, and, and, uh, this is not ego, trust me. I, I... just personal observations. Um, you can hire a lot of people and you sit them down in front of a dispatch console, and the first time somebody says, "Shots fired," um, that, you know, "Somebody just tried to run over me," it takes a very unique individual to be able to sit there at that radio console and, you know, uh, be able to do that. So I suggest out of 10 people that you hire, maybe, maybe one would be able to do it. So I, I, I don't know what the answer is. I really don't. I, I know that there has to be something differently done, but what that is, I just don't know. And Ms. Wells- Did anybody have a... I mean, I... Is this the appropriate time to ask any more questions of me about... Well, you had indicated a desire to speak, uh, on this subject. Yes. Yes. And I didn't know if there was anything else you wanted to say, now would be a good time to do it. Uh-oh, while I'm already up here? Um, just that last week, somebody asked me about the, you know... Uh, "Did you... Hey, did you put in time?" I'm like, "Yes, I put in time." But, you know, I got, um, as many, uh, uh, more, way more denials than I got approvals. Um, you know, like she said, and they compare it, like, to... I'm, I'm sorry, all due respect, but to suggest that I'm just like a, an office secretary that can e-... Well, if you say... I mean, if you told somebody in... Those other people that are facing li- losing time, more than likely, they're gonna get it down. ... before December 30th. And this, this is an issue that y'all wanna flush out further and put it off until next year, it's gonna be too late for me, because th- this is something that happens at the December 31st. So I would, you know, respectfully request that you'll make a decision sometime before the end of the year, because I've already had, uh, an employee quit. I had an employee quit the other day, because eh, for, uh, lots of reasons, but I think primarily because she, uh, she quit giving me leave su- submittals several months ago, because every time I would, she would give 'em to me. I asked for 'em, they give 'em to me, and then I would give 'em back denied, because there's not enough people to do it. Now, I, you know, the alternatively, eh, I mean I, I would rather have some time off, because it is very stressful and I could really use some time off, but I, I would not be opposed to money. I mean, I could use the, the money just as well as anything. I, I, I, so just take it away from me, I, I'm not gonna go away and I, I'm not gonna be happy with that. And I, I suggest, I mean, I, I can't imagine that any of my coworkers are gonna be satisfied with that. So you, it's, something's gotta give. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Senate. Thank you. Ms. Wells, before you sit down, ho- how many weeks of vacation or how many days have you used this year? How many? I mean, you said five. You only used five. I, uh, I took four weeks in 2019- Ms. Wells, Ms. Wells, please go back to the mic. I just wanna make sure the information we got before us is accurate. I would, um, if you- Approximate, I don't need it exact. ... approximate, gosh, I don't know. You've had more than five, right? I've had the, whatever is above the 80 hours that you get, because I've got my, um, holiday time down below. But as in, if you're going by what the intended use of holiday or vacation time is, I can only think of one time where I've had o- not even five days approved off in a row, just five days that I wasn't at work. Okay. So, aga- well- That's, that's fine. Okay. I, I just wanna make sure the information- I, I hope that answers your question. ... we're looking at. It, it does because- Okay. ... I mean, the information w- we've been given has shown everyone's ranged from three to nine weeks. Have- I had ten days. Okay. Of, uh, vacation time. And, you know, th- just to the point the Commissioner made too at the beginning of his comments, th- this is done by ordinance. This is not done by, uh, anything else. And that's something this council- ... probably needs to take a look at, i- is this ordinance and carryover, but, uh, understanding though that any change and it will affect every employee in government un- unless there's a way, the law department wants to figure out t- to single out a group of employees right now, that we can't, because they're all under the same civil service system. Um, we can amend this policy of our vacation time obviously, but again, it's done by ordinance and it's not an ar- arbitrary decision that we have made one way or another. So thank you, Mayor. All right. Uh, Council Member Crosby. Um, yeah, I a- I agree with some of what Council Member Senate as far as I believe that this is one of the best examples of terrible management. Um, it's unbelievable that we have people being denied wa- ca- time and time again, where they have, uh, turned in, uh, asking for, uh, time that they've earned and we've, we've seen examples. We've ha- we've gotten multiple emails where they've been, uh, turned in for time off and it, they've been denied and denied and denied. So it's impossible for them to take the time off that they have earned, like Council Member Gordon said. We're, we're basic, th- they're set up for failure. We have an ordinance in place, but we can't let these employees utilize what they're allowed within the ordinance. It's set up for failure because of the understaffing in their department. So it's set up for failure, which to me is a management issue. Um, and then it puts us in a position to where we're having to change an ordinance because of poor management of one division. Um, I don't know what the answer is, but clearly there's a problem here. Um, and, and, and I don't know what the, what the answer is. Uh, it's disturbing to me also when I see that, uh, people are turning in for sick time and they're being denied sick time with a doctor's notice and told to go get, uh, family medical leave for two days of sick time and denied sick time. Um, I hope that we can come up, uh, like Ms. Wells said, with something today before the end of the year. A- again, I don't know what the answer is to this, because we do have an ordinance in place. It seems like just within this division that the system's flawed. I think I'll wait to hear what other council members have to comment. But this is probably one of the worst examples of a management problem I've seen within a division, where we have people denied what they've earned within an ordinance. It's just completely set up for failure and, um, puts us in a situation to where, um, we're, we're, we're trying to correct something that, that we can't correct, um, without changing an ordinance. And I think that the management thought that it would go away by just taking it away. And then if we add it back, based on the hours on how they do add up, they can't even get their hours in in the first quarter of the new year. It, it's completely set up for failure th- as I look at it. And if somebody can show me another way that this is not set up for failure, um, I, I would love to see it. But the, the way I look at it, anything we do right now, it's completely set up for failure. So I think we've got a little work cut out for us today. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. This is real quick. I would like a, a spreadsheet or something that tells us how many, each employee, how many hours they were, they requested in vacation time that was denied. I'll try to get that put together for you. Thank you. Council Member James. Thanks, Mayor. I think my question is m- is not really for Commissioner Bennett, but more so probably- As someone that deals with the budget, because my question is ... if this is ... Well, first of all, if an employee leaves the government, are they paid out for they va- their vacation when they leave? They are. Okay. So then it's clear that that's money that's earned by them from their work hours. So I'm trying to figure out ... I mean, obviously there's an ordinance in place, um, 21-33, that says it doesn't carry over until we get a blue sheet, um, that comes to council that says, "Waive that ordinance and allow this for this particular division." Um, so I guess what I'm wondering is has there been conversation, um, on the -- on the administration side? I mean, obviously, i- when you look at budget reductions and things to not do, or that are gonna cause, um, a budget, a negative budget impact, has there been conversation, Mayor and the, and the administration, that you will get this much money if no division brings forward, you'll have this much additional funding based on non-rollover of vacation hours to the next year? So has there been ... Because the memo from David Lucas said no government employees will get rollover. So I don't think that's really been addressed yet. I guess I need for you to ask the question again because I'm not- Okay. ... sure I followed that part of what you asked me. I know, I asked like a million of them. Okay. Was the memo accurate? No. Uh, more precisely, it was, um, sent without any prior approval. Okay. And I think that is the genesis of some of the confusion. Okay. And we have talked with Mr. Lucas about that, so ... Okay. And with that, if there were any divisions that were going to ask for that waiver, it would've already been done because we're at our last council meeting tonight. Presumably, but, uh, I am not aware of the issue coming up with other divisions. Have, have the division directors shared with you preliminarily that this is going to be their method of a reduction in their budgets? No. Okay. Um ... Eh, I mean, the, the thing that I would interject there is this ordinance has been in place since the '70s. Seventy-eight, I think. And so the idea that there's this 168-hour cap on vacation time is not something that's new to urban county government. So I think there has been an understanding that if you don't utilize your vacation time and you wind up at the end of the year with more than 168 hours, you're gonna lose whatever the excess was. So it, it has not been brought forward as some kind of budget, uh, solving approach to the, to the financial issues. Okay. I- I'm wondering, e- and maybe you know this, Mayor, that was, that's been since the '70s, that ordinance? That's my understanding. Have we changed the amount of days that people get off for vacation in that, since that time? I'm sure we have. I mean, we've changed it once since 2007, that I recall, but, um, I feel confident there have been others. Yeah. We've, we've ... How ... The amount of holiday time has changed. I don't know if the amount of vacation accrual has. You know, we can research it and see, but ... Okay. Ms. George may be able to address that. But it seems like to me that would be partner legislation that you would need to look at one or the other. Vacation hours has not changed. Holiday has. Okay. Let's have a seat. Does the ordinance 2133 address both or only one? 2133? That was the one referenced earlier. I'm not sure if that's the number or not. 2133 addresses vacation. Okay. All right. So if council wanted to today to extend through that first quarter, we would just make the motion to extend through the first quarter. Can we do that per division, the same as the, a director, divisional director would be able to submit a blue sheet to do that? In the ... Are you talking about for E911? Yeah. Yes. We've done that in the past. We've extended, um, their use date past December 31st. Okay. And I think we've done that for the past couple of years. Okay. But just to be clear on the process, correct me if I'm wrong, that would necessitate approval by ordinance- Right, it's an ordinance to do that. Right. ... that you would necessitate it. An ordinance change would require two readings- Okay. ... all that. All right. Thanks, Glenda. Thanks, Mayor. Councilmember Hinson. Thank you, Mayor. Um, you know, we talk about this cap, and the only thing I'm saying is if ... It's just not fair to this division if they're not allowed to take the time, then that cap is not fair to them. And I wanted to tell Tracy that I have reported complaints about the E911 callers, call takers, I'm sorry. I've had citizens tell me several times that the call takers are rude, disrespectful, so forth. And in your defense, I say, well, you know, it is probably a very, very stressful job, very close to being just as stressful as police. And if you're working in a stressful job, it would be good to be able to take your vacation time and get away from it. Um, so I really think that we should extend this for three months. They probably won't have enough time to take it, but we could, um... And also, I think that this division needs to be looked at in committee. So I'll make a motion. Second. Second, Mayor? U- Um- What's the second? I think the staffing needs to be looked at. It's like if there's a lot of turnover, maybe their hiring process is off. We need to look at, um, if a person is hired to handle those type of calls and they run off screaming or whatever, then we've defeated the... You know, we've gotta do a be- have a better hiring process. Are you making a motion to extend it for three months and then put it into committee to look at their staffing and their hiring- Yes, in committee. ... their division in committee? What committee? Well, there's got to be a solution to them not, the staff not being able to take their vacation. It comes up every year, as we've said, so they, they have to be properly staffed, and we need to look at the hiring processes. I see. So I would move to put that into intergovernmental. So, is your motion to extend it and to, is it to pull- Right. 'Cause that was your second, so I was just making sure. Yeah, two separate motions, I guess. Okay, the motion that's on the floor right now is to refer a review of E911 staffing and hiring to the Intergovernmental Committee. Is there a second on that motion? Second. Second from Council Member Crosby. So let's see if there's any debate on that particular issue. Council Member, uh, James. I- I'm just not extremely clear 'cause I didn't hear you say what she said. Can you repeat what the motion is again, please? The motion would be for, uh, to place an intergovernmental committee to take a look at the staffing process for the E911, because they have to have the appropriate staff hours to accommodate the employees so they can take their vacation, okay? Okay, thank you. Thanks, Mayor. All right, the discussion's now on the motion to refer to Intergovernmental. Council Member Stennet. Based on that clarification, that is different from what you said. You said hiring and staffing. There's a big difference. We're just gonna look at their staffing levels, right? Well, I think that the hiring process may need to be looked at in order to staff it properly. If they're having nine out of 10 people quit, maybe we should, we would need to look at their turnover, um, the, the reason for the turnover, and if, uh, the individuals are not being screened properly, then it would be a hiring process, I believe. I just wanna point the hiring process is, is covered under state statute, so we can't make any changes to that. That, that's, was my point. Um, now- The training or- The, the general- ... the screening. ... look at the screening, yes. Correct. The staffing issue, okay. Correct. Thank you. All right, everybody clear on the motion that's on the floor? Then those in favor of referring the staffing on E911 to Intergovernmental Committee, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Now, Council Member Henson, do you have a second motion about putting an item on the docket? I want to make a motion that we extend the vacation hours, and it has to be for all LFUC. No. No, okay. Just for the E911 division for 90 days. Okay, the motion would be to amend the docket to put on tonight's meeting docket an ordinance to extend for 90 days. All right? Then we'll... March 31st. Okay, March 31st, end of the first quarter. So moved. And I heard a second. Was it Council Member Crosby? All right. Um, any discussion on the motion to amend the docket to add that item to the agenda? Council Member Myers, then Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I'm gonna try to stay on the, on the motions on the table. I- Sure. I'm not gonna support this motion, uh, for a couple reasons. One, um, whatever we do, we need to do for everybody, so that it's not just specific to this one group. And I- I guess what I would do is ask if, if, um, you would be amenable to amend the motion so that, um... Council Member, uh, Lawless brought up a great point earlier. She asked a question, how many people were denied to get a spreadsheet that, that scheduled out, how many hours were denied, um, for reasons that they needed to, to stay there and be staff? So what I'd do is ask if you would be amenable to amending your motion so that, um, any LFUCG employee that this year was denied vacation time because of the need for them to work, and that created a situation where they are gonna lose vacation at the end of the year, that those hours be rolled over. ... and they only be rolled over for the first quarter, like the ordinance currently says. And that a part of that is that the manager, the director is required to submit back to the commissioner and the council an action plan to ensure that those hours are worked during that first quar- or those hours are taken off during that first quarter so that we don't have this problem moving forward. So moved. Hmm. Uh, uh, uh, okay. So you're m- m- moving to amend the motion to include all LFUCG employees who have requested but have been denied vacation leave through today? I, I mean, people who've made the request prior to today? Correct. All right. Is there a second to that motion to amend? Hearing none, the m- the motion to amend dies for lack of a second. Okay, we have a second now from council- Council Member Crosby. I second. The item on the floor for discussion is Council Member Meyers' motion to amend to add language to the effect that- If you r- ... ... the proposed extension would apply to all F- UFUCG employees who have sought vacation time this year but have been denied it prior to today. Try to take off that corner and they wouldn't count. That's not fair. Uh, we're, we're off the screen right now. So if you'd like to speak to the amendment, let me know. Council Member Blues, let me know about raising your hand. Council Member Blues and Council Member, uh, Gordon and Council Member James. Well, he can only do hit. I think the spirit of the motion is this, uh, the original motion that is, that we have a special situation brought to our attention by one unit of, uh, of government. Anyone coming back with a- And in order to, to sort things out, I tried to get a, uh, uh, a handle on this situation and do justice to, to these employees. We've agreed to, uh, to extend the period for yet another year. That's not another year. Uh, and, uh, th- or I'm sorry, that we've agreed to- Come on, then. ... to refer, uh, the matter to, uh, to committee and now are, are considering whether to, uh, uh, if, if, uh, in, in considering whether we can, we can resolve this problem within the first quarter of, of next year. So I'll support the original motion, but, uh, in order to, to give us some time to examine, to re-examine and to see if we can find a solution. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I'm in, basically in agreement with Council Member Blues. In the past, we have done this for community corrections, we have done it for IT computer services when we were not able to get employees in those jobs and had to... Those folks had to work over. I agree that the spirit of the motion is that we have one group that has come to us with 12 out of 20 employees, if I understand the numbers, who've been denied vacation time. That's a pretty high percentage. Um, and we don't know the situation about all of our other employees in all of our other divisions. Um, I would be interested to know, but I think today the appropriate motion is the original one. Um, and I will not be supporting the amendment. Council Member James is next, followed by Council Member Crosby. Again, we're focusing on Council Member Meyers' motion to amend. Council Member James. Thanks, Mayor. Um, Council Member Meyers, can you clarify your motion was not just blanketed, um, everyone denied. It was saying denied based on staffing levels. Is that... Did I understand that correctly? What the motion is, is the, the ordinance says that they can roll over time to the first quarter, but it has to be taken in the first quarter. What this original motion does, and, and Council Member Gordon made my point instead of the point she's trying to make. The original motion, what it does is says, we're gonna give all these folks all their time again for the first quarter that doesn't fix this problem. It ends up with the same problem that we currently have. They can't take it all off or they don't take it all off. Next year, we're gonna be right back in the same situation. So what I'm saying is, if the ordinance says that you were able to roll your time over, but you had to take it during the first quarter, if you didn't take it because you didn't request it, you lose it. That's what the ordinance says. If you tried to take it, but the government said you could not take off, that's the point that Council Member Gordon's making with corrections where they were denied vacation and that's why we let them extend it. In the same way with the people that were working in the STARS program, they were denied vacation, that's why we let them roll it over. So my point is, if we deny time off, let them roll those hours over. If it wasn't denied and they just didn't request it, they lose it just like the ordinance says. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Council Member Crosby. I s- I actually seconded the motion because I did have a question on council members, uh, Myers', um, amendment to it. And I guess my question was, if you are in a different division of government, for example, E911, they have documentation that they were denied. And procedurally, I was just curious as to other divisions, if they're denied time off, would they have the same type of documentation? Because- I -- I believe that if -- if you're denied, would you have to be provided with some type of documentation that you're denied, or would it just be, um... Because -- because anybody, they could say, "Oh, I wasn't allowed to have it." Well, were you just told that or would you have some kind of documentation? Because I think there's -- those are two different things. Um, that was my question because... Ah, ah, ah, may I try to address that? There is a -- a leave form that is submitted and either approved or denied by the supervisor, so I assume that that form is retained and a part of the record. I -- I would also, the -- the existing ordinance does not allow for a rollover of 90 days. It ha- it takes a special action by the council to make that happen. So I would suggest to you that people who worked during the ice storm and people who worked, uh, during, you know, s- sewer line breaks and weekends and here we are the 1st of December, I think that... And they haven't asked because the ordinance says, "Use it or lose it." So they haven't asked to carry over. So if you're gonna allow for some carryover, you should allow all those people to carry over. The ordinance says you can't carry it over. And -- and if you wanna change that, that's certainly okay with us, but I just think it's an issue of fairness for -- for the people who are abiding by the ordinance. Question again is on Council Member Myers' amendment. Council Member Myers. Can I, can I ask a question? Um, Mr. Kelly, when you just said the ordinance doesn't allow for a rollover, I was referring to the ordinance that the commissioner, um, spoke about earlier. I guess that's the, maybe that was specific to this group last year? That -- that was a one-time exemption that you provided last year. And it was the exemption that said you had to use it in the first quarter? Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. Yeah. The -- the current ordinance does not allow for carry forward. Council Member Lawless. Over 168 hours, yes. I'm sorry. Um, oh, I'm sorry. First of all, the ice storm was in a limited time. This seems to me like a division or department... It's a day in, day out, 365 day a year crisis. And so, yeah, I mean, and I'm grateful to people who worked in the ice storm and all those other things, but that was a two-week or a three-week period, not 365 days a year. And that we give them this vacation time and it is denied i- and the fact that it's, this is the fourth year in a row says to me that there is a severe management problem with the department director, Mr. Lucas, who isn't here today because he's on vacation. And um, it's, that needs to be addressed. It's a systemic problem that goes on 911 is seven days a week, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. It's not an ice storm. It's not one thing. Thank you. Any further discussion on Council Member Myers' amendment? All right, we're ready to vote on the amendment. The amendment, as you may recall, was to include all LFUCG employees who had been denied, um, leave during this year prior to today. Those in favor of Council Member Myers' motion, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. Motion fails by a vote of 2 to 10. That takes us back to the original motion by Council Member Henson to grant a 30-day, u- uh, u- until March 31st, 2010 for, um, a one-time exemption. Any further discussion on that issue? Council Member Stennet. Still got a practical matter, Commissioner. How are they gonna use it? I mean, we're gonna grant this tonight. How are they really gonna use it? Is anyone gonna be allowed to take a vacation day the next 90 days? As I said earlier, I don't know. As, to my knowledge, we haven't looked at it because we hadn't anticipated the carryover. Last year, a- and I don't know how many, I'll qualify this by saying I don't know how many people got to carry time over. Uh, but as I recall, at the end of the first quarter only two, maybe three at the most lost time and they were nominal hours. So people were able to take time off during that quarter. We'll work, we'll work as best as we can to get uh, get them the time off during this quarter, too. But it's safe to say that some of this time's gonna be lost regardless, and for some of the folks that have three and four weeks- Possible. I, I can't say for sure. As I said, we'll work with them to the extent we can. Uh, we can't compromise service to let them off, but we'll try to maintain service to the extent we can and let them off. And w- if, by granting this tonight, will this time count amongst our total hours, or after 90 days, this extra time goes away no matter what? After 90 days, this extra time goes away no matter what. Now during- Every time- ... during that 90 p- 90-day period, they'll continue to accrue the time they would have accrued anyway. Correct, the 168. Again- Well, the 168 carryover, but they'll continue to accrue their 10 or 14 hours, whichever they get, during January, February, March, in addition to the hours they carried over. So they won't- Okay, thank you. ... be penalized for that. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I almost didn't think I was gonna quite get far enough down the list t- to talk today. I think we kept uh, k- kept getting onto new motions. Um- I -- it seems like a -- a -- a sort of a structural problem in the way this department's set up. Um, it -- if we were three people short than where we were today, they would have an even bigger problem- Sure. ... because when you have required staffing and required levels of service, um, i- if folks gotta be in the chairs and answering the phones, th- they can't be taken off. And so, um, I- it -- I, I don't envy the administration's, uh, position in trying to manage this budget in these times. It's just an awful thing to have to try to do. And I commend the administration for doing a, a great job. It, it just seems like there's times when we cut to the bone and this might be further. And so, uh, I would encourage, um, uh, the administration- ... to, to get some new staffing in this department so that they're, that the rest of 'em can, can take a little breather 'cause they're all carrying the collective load of running the department. True. And if there's not enough of 'em to let some of 'em go out and sharpen their ax once in a while, you know, then they're gonna be like the wood chopper beating that, that log in the woods, and, uh, you know, they, they, uh, "I, I don't have time to sharpen my ax. I got all this wood to cut." And so we need to let them just sort of take some time to go sharpen the ax. And if it's, and if they're not being, ha- don't have enough staffing to allow them to take vacations, I think we owe it to them to, to do that. And, uh, yeah, it's a difficult budget to, to, to, to manage and we gotta find places to cut back, but I think that, uh, uh, I, I think this department particularly, all the police and fire come through them and I think it's im- it's important that we, uh, you know, that we, uh, you know, that we, we, we be fair to them and allow them to, to take the vacation that they are gonna need to, to, uh, to, to go recharge and be, be fresh on, during those, those late night hours. So thank you, Mayor. Question on the floor is whether to amend the docket to include an ordinance granting a one-time 90-day exemption til March 31st, 2010. Council member Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. I, I guess my question would be what about the people who worked on PeopleSoft and all the rest of the other people in government that are gonna lose their time and we're only focusing on one, one individual department of government? Any further discussion? Then let's vote. Those in favor of amending the docket to, uh, include this item, uh, this evening, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. Motion carries by a vote of nine to three. Right. Uh, while we're still on this topic, um, Ms. Anderson indicated a desire to speak. I don't know if, uh, you'd like to do so. Mayor, are we on public comment now? Uh, actually, we're still on this whole issue of the, uh, E911 pay. Ms. Anderson will- I'm Carla Anderson. Um, I'm gonna begin by, um, just saying this is my 23rd year with the city, and prior to, prior to three years ago, we didn't have this issue. We didn't have the staffing issue. Um, and, and since then, with the extensions, I believe we have been able to use all of our, uh, rollover vacation that we were allowed by the deadline of April 1st. And in the last couple years, I think, I think we've been able to do that. Um, I myself have, uh, a lot of denials from April 1st through the end of the year, so it's not that we haven't tried to take off. But our main issue is just the inadequate staffing and the shortages that we have. Um, I wanna explain to, a l- a little bit about how we operate because most of the people don't know how, um, our division actually works. We're a, we're a small division and prior to three years ago, we had, um, a supervisor and three dispatchers on every shift. We have four shifts. And the rotation, everything worked really well as far as the coverage and we very seldom ever had a turnover. Um, but since then, um, most of the time, even though I'm a supervisor, we've been short staffed since, for the last three years, we've been short or understaffed. Um, I myself don't get to supervise all day. Most of the time, almost every day, uh, I'm usually the third person there, meaning that I'm gonna have to man a dispatch or the phone or the radio or something to take a place as a dispatcher. And that's how we've been operating lately. Um, one part of us getting off work when one person wants off, since there's, since we are short, if one person wants off, we can't just get up and leave our seat empty. Somebody has to work overtime and come back and work for us. So our overtime budget is probably rather high and that's one reason why we can't get off, is, um, we do use a lot of overtime. But that's the only way, that's the only way that y- we can use our time and, um, we just have so many, um, people that we even have an option to ask if they can work overtime. Ms. Anderson, you have about 25 seconds. Hm. Okay. Um, anyway, that's basically what I wanted to say, was to answer some of those questions that I had heard. Um, so we would appreciate, uh, getting the extension. I think we could do our best to try to, try to utilize our time in that- Thank you. ... 90 days. Thanks. Does anyone else have anything further on this general topic? All right. That, uh, concludes then the mayor's report and the only two people who had registered to speak during, um, public comment were the two individuals who have already spoken. Does anyone else wish to address the council? Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Have a motion by Council Member Crosby and a second by Council Member Martin that we adjourn. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries and we'll reconvene at six o'clock.